Archive for August, 2011

A Florida lawyer is helping citizen fight red light tickets that are issued by cameras because he says they are unconstitutional.
Daytona Beach attorney Aaron Delgado told the Daytona Beach News Journal that he has gotten a number of requests from people to help fight the red light tickets, which can cost up to $300 each.
"I [helped them fight the tickets] for free because I thought the cameras were unconstitutional and I wanted to challenge the system," he told the news provider.
Red light cameras have become a major issue in the Sunshine State in recent weeks as communities across Florida installed the cameras to catch alleged traffic violators. However, some, like Delgado, have been pushing back against the cameras, contending that they do not work correctly and they raise a number of constitutional concerns.
Delgado says that he has gotten at least a dozen tickets rescinded, typically by calling the cameras' accuracy into question.
Still opponents of the cameras likely have an uphill battle as a Broward County Judge Steven P. DeLuca recently ruled that the cameras were constitutional.

In a recent press conference, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg stated that he would like to see red light cameras used on every corner of the city. According to New York Channel 1, the ones already being used in the city brought in $50 million in revenue last year, improving from $35 million in 2009.
Many people support the idea saying that it will be beneficial to the safety of the city's pedestrians.
"The motorist in me, not a fan. The pedestrian in me, it definitely helps me out," said a New York City driver, to the news source.
Meanwhile, many other cities across the country have been taking efforts to get rid of red light cameras because of all the controversy that seems to come with them. Los Angeles has recently announced that it will be shutting down use of all of its red light cameras after the city's police comission unanimously voted to get rid of them, according to ABC News.
The city claimed to issue tickets for $500 but only had approximately a $150 return per ticket issued, according to the news source.

Thank you to San Diego Channel 6 The CW, and Jim Patton for producing and airing an amazing segment on our growing company. Jim interviews TicketKick Founder & President Greg Muender and how his company helps customers in contesting traffic tickets. The segment focuses specifically on California red light camera tickets, although we can assist drivers in contesting nearly all types of traffic violations. Original Air Date was August 22nd, 2011. Video courtesy of San Diego Channel 6 The CW.

A new law in California puts new restrictions on drivers who receive a traffic ticket and wish to attend traffic school to keep their driving record clean. California legal company, TicketKick® helps drivers keep their driving record clean by assisting in contesting traffic tickets for a Flat Fee™ and a money back guarantee. Drivers who's tickets are dismissed do not receive a point on their record which eliminates the need to attend traffic school.

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) July 28, 2011
Existing law in California previously allowed the court to allow anyone with a traffic violation to attend traffic school to clear their driving record, up to the discretion of the judge. Beginning July 1, 2011, a new law went into affect which severely limits the judge's ability to grant traffic school to many drivers. TicketKick®, California's leading resource for traffic ticket defense finds that many people in California in the past have chosen to plead guilty, pay their ticket and attend traffic school to keep their records clean, that is until they realized that they could hire a low cost legal service like TicketKick® to help them fight their ticket. California AB 2499, now in effect, places several restrictions on drivers who wish to attend traffic school, giving even more reason for drivers to contest their traffic ticket.
Up until recently, when drivers with a traffic ticket attended a court approved online or classroom traffic school, the conviction was dismissed from their driving record and did not appear as a 'point' against them. Under this new law, attending traffic school for the purpose of maintaining a clean driving record will "result in a designation of the driver's conviction as confidential, rather than having the complaint dismissed" according to an AB 2499 bill analysis. This means that the driver's ticket could still be seen by insurance companies or the DMV, viewable as a private violation.
This law will also prohibit drivers who receive more than one violation within an 18 month period to attend traffic school more than once within that period. In the past, many people would get away with attending traffic school for more than one ticket within 18 months because either the judge would allow it, or there would simply be a miscommunication between the courthouses. This new law will put a stop to this, as the courthouses will more communicative about the eligibility of a driver to attend traffic school. It requires the DMV to develop an online database accessible by all courts and by the traffic schools to allow oversight of student enrollments and completions, therefore keeping track of when a driver last attended traffic school. Furthermore, level two (12 hour) traffic school previously provided an opportunity for a driver to attend traffic school more than once during an 18 month period, when granted by the judge. This new law also puts an end to this option. Regardless of the county or courthouse, no driver will be allowed to attend traffic school more than once within 18 months for the purpose of keeping a point off of their driving record.
The number of tickets issued in California each year is estimated by several sources to be in the multi-millions. According to the AB 2499 Analysis, "the TVS (traffic violator school) option assists the operation of the courts by significantly reducing the sheer volume of potential court cases."
"Simply put, the courts don't want to deal with millions of trials," says Greg Muender, President and Founder of TicketKick®. "A lot of people don't realize that they have the option to contest their ticket through the mail through a trial by written declaration, because the courts don't generally volunteer that option to people. But it is a very convenient legal procedure in California and we take advantage of it to the benefit of the drivers. Fighting a ticket through a trial by written declaration is an excellent place to start considering most cases are dismissed with our defenses, but even if it's not, you can still resort to your option of requesting traffic school thereafter."
If a driver chooses to attend traffic school, they must pay their full ticket fine, pay the court's traffic school fee, and then pay the traffic school. The fee that the court imposes on a driver to attend traffic school may be increased to cover the fees incurred by a court assistance program (CAP) for monitoring and traffic administration services provided to the court.
A representative of IVES Auto Insurance said that a driver's rates could be increased as much as 20% if they have two tickets within three years on their record, or for having a suspension due to any unpaid tickets. Mr. Muender of TicketKick® drives the point home: "Many people receive more than one traffic ticket within 18 months, it's very common, especially with California's ticketing increases. Our point is: Why use up your traffic school option when you can fight it first? Every ticket has potential to be dismissed, and our defense experts aggressively write defenses for most violations based on every aspect of the law. If you are found guilty, then you can resort to traffic school."
TicketKick® is a registered Legal Document Assistant in California, providing self help services in traffic ticket defense, with a similar service model to companies such as LegalZoom and E*Trade. TicketKick® works with attorneys in California in developing their defenses, which utilize many different arguments and tactics. TicketKick's goal is to help people get their traffic tickets dismissed, and although not every customer will win their case, TicketKick® offers a refund and a free consultation for guilty verdicts. TicketKick® representatives can be reached at (800) 580-1902, at http://www.ticketkick.com, or at questions(at)ticketkick(dot)com.
###

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) August 25, 2011
In the midst of recent heat about red light camera tickets in Los Angeles, California's legal company, TicketKick®, has recently received dozens of phone calls from people confused as to whether they should do something about their red-light camera ticket or if they can simply ignore it. Recent articles and news pieces have made claims that paying red-light camera fines in LA are "voluntary" and that "if you don't pay it, nothing happens."
The representatives at TicketKick see the reality of the situation, having been contacted by several people who ignored their red-light camera ticket in LA, and faced financial consequences from collection agencies. TicketKick predicts that they will be hearing from many other people in the same situation in the upcoming months who were mislead by the media, and believed they could simply ignore their red light tickets with no penalties. They hope to warn people before it's too late.
"The media has taken what is going on in LA out of context," says TicketKick's president, Greg Muender. "They're telling the public that they can ignore their red-light camera tickets and that nothing will happen to them. Sure, the judges in LA aren't knocking on your door and demanding that you pay up, but they do send unpaid tickets to collections. Unpaid tickets are subject to civil assessment (late) fees which normally are about $300 a pop, on top of the $500 ticket fine. Then you would be dealing with an unpaid ticket in the court's record, and if you were ever to get pulled over again, you'd be in big trouble. One insurance company told us that they automatically raise rates up to 20% if they see an unpaid ticket on your record. Whether or not these consequences actually happen to you in Los Angeles or if you slide through the cracks of enforcement, it's certainly not worth the risk, and you certainly wouldn't want it to haunt you later down the road. We say, don't just pay it, but fight it. We have excellent success with red-light camera tickets in Los Angeles, and all over California."
When someone logs onto the LA Superior Court's website at lasuperiorcourt.org, a notice appears on the homepage that warns: "The City of Los Angeles has decided to end its red light camera program on July 31, 2011. The City's action does not stop the processing of outstanding red-light citations. It does not eliminate penalties associated with red-light citations. It does not constitute grounds for a refund of any money paid on such a citation. Anyone issued a red-light citation must resolve it within the specified time limits or face certain penalties as prescribed by law."
According to the LA Times, the LA Police Commission voted unanimously to end the red-light camera program in July, putting the city in the center of a widespread debate over the purpose of the program and the effectiveness of the cameras in preventing accidents. Skeptics of red-light cameras argue that the cities' priority in operating the systems is based on revenue generation, not on preventing accidents, and Los Angeles is one city that actually lost money since so many tickets were going unpaid, therefore, they cancelled the program.
What many people don't realize is that the city of Los Angeles, not the county of Los Angeles, has ended their red-light camera systems, and that surrounding cities are still utilizing the cameras and issuing tickets. For example, Beverly Hills has considered expanding their red-light cameras to more intersections, and other surrounding cities in LA County are still profiting from regularly issuing thousands of tickets.
TicketKick's team writes defenses from every aspect of the law including technicalities of the camera systems. One of their arguments, based on published case precedence out of People vs. Khaled, points out that the red-light camera photos must be admitted into evidence by a qualified officer specifically trained in red-light cameras. Often times, the city will chose a random officer to respond with testimony, and TicketKick argues that a random officer who simply views the photos and video and submits a statement to the judge is not the right person to be testifying on the legality and technicality of the cameras, and therefore the case should be dismissed. About 70% of TicketKick's cases are dismissed.
TicketKick is a registered Legal Document Assistant in California, providing self help services to beat traffic tickets, with a similar service model to companies such as LegalZoom and E*Trade. TicketKick works with attorneys in California in developing their defenses, which utilize many different arguments and tactics. TicketKick's goal is to help people get their traffic tickets dismissed, and although not every customer will win their case, TicketKick offers a refund and a free consultation for guilty verdicts. TicketKick representatives can be reached at (800) 580-1902, at ticketkick.com, or at questions(at)ticketkick(dot)com.
# # #

At TicketKick.com, we prepare defenses for thousands of recipients of red light camera tickets annually. We've reviewed dozens of contracts from ATS (American Traffic Solutions), and most contracts seem to be very similar in scope and content. The ironic part is that reactivating the cameras in Houston will not bring in money, it will just prevent the city from having to pay ATS millions in early-termination fees. The analogy is quite simple. Similar to a cell-phone contract, sometimes it makes more sense to pay a few bucks a month and keep the line for the duration of the contract rather than to pay the exorbitant early-cancellation fees. In our experience, the vast majority of the cities actually lose money on their red light camera initiatives, when all costs are factored in. In smaller cities with just one or two camera systems, this may mean a net loss of just a few thousand per month. But for a large city, such as Los Angeles, with 30 + camera systems, the loss could be in the millions. Coincidently, L.A. just removed their cameras on August 1st, after their contract with ATS expired. Most sources cite the $1.8 million dollar deficit caused by the operation of the system as the primary motivating factor in removing the program. Contrary to Houston's situation, L.A.'s contract with ATS had expired, thereby eliminating any fee to "get out."
Most likely, Houston loses a bit of money on the program every year. And although it seems to strange to reactivate a losing venture, Mayor Parker sees that Houston's budgetary concerns are lessened by losing a bit of money every month, rather than forking over millions of dollars upfront. So despite the public outcry for what seems to be blatant ignorance of the voter's expressed decisions, it makes financial sense for the Mayor to push her luck and flip the switch back on.

We launched TicketKick, as it is today, in July of 2010, and have continued to grow since then. Our customers pay us to help them prepare defenses for contesting their traffic citations. Over the last year, we have had countless mistakes. However, we've learned from them, and have better our company because of them. When starting a business, it's so easy for an owner to want to deliver the most to his or her prospective customers. Businesses spread themselves too thin in their infancy stage, and can't deliver on their promises. The most commonly encountered problem that we've seen in our company and other start-ups is that they do not under-promise and over-deliver. On the contrary, emerging companies tend to do the opposite.
With our service, about 70% of our customers successfully beat their tickets. Not everyone can win, simple math shows that about 30% of our customers do not beat their cases. When we first started, we wanted to sell our product, so we conveyed incredible confidence. We'd say things like "In the rare event that your case is found guilty.." or "We are so confident that we can get your case dismissed..."
Although this worked for signing people up, it backfired. When the inevitable 30% were found guilty of their cases, they were upset. We had built up our service so much, only to let them down. Customers were rightfully perturbed, and we couldn't count on them ever coming back to us, or telling friends and family.
Today, we do the opposite. We are very transparent to the customer from the get-go. We go out of our way to make it apparent that although there is a great chance to beat the ticket, there is a chance that they will lose, too. To our surprise, this strategy has worked in our favor in two ways.
1)The customer sees an honest company, so they utilize our services. In this industry, ultimately our success rate lies in the hands of the judges. The same holds true with any competitor. Any company can claim, "We'll get the job done, we never fail!" A more trustworthy company says, "We are going to tell you the facts, and give you the information to make your own, calculated decision." Eliminating other variables, our sales have gone up 20% after implementing this new mantra.
2)Win or lose, we still have a satisfied customer. When we started, we branded ourselves as the company to use to beat your ticket. Now, we brand ourselves as the company to use to try to beat your ticket. Although the difference appears minimal on the surface, it has had huge implications that reverberate throughout the company. Customers that lose their tickets still send us friends and family as referrals, or even come back to us with another ticket. One recent customer commented on our Facebook page, "Thank you guys. I would use you again in a heart beat. You made this process so easy! I am seriously shocked it wasn't dismissed." She lost her case, yet was so impressed by our service, that she plans to come back if she needs to. Although we would have loved to see her beat her case, it's a job well done in our books when we have such a positive response from our customers.
365 days ago we made promises that we couldn't always deliver on. We built up our dismissal so much, that customers expected a dismissal. When they won, they weren't shocked, and when they lost, they were angry. Now, we set up the customer with the right mindset, so that when the customer loses a case, they still feel validated, but we do get the case dismissed, the customer is positively surprised!

Over the last few years, we have helped thousands of customers contest their traffic citations, and many of our customers have been cited for traveling over 100 miles-per-hour. Anything over 100 is a violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22348(b).
"100" is the magic number when it comes to speeding tickets. Anything 99 mph or less is pretty standard, and a driver isn't facing any serious charges. Get caught for going over 100 MPH, however, and a driver can face some serious consequences. For starters, anything over 100 miles-per-hour is a two-point infraction, rather than the one point that a traditional speeding citation carries. Fines can close in on $1,000, and some judges will even suspend or restrict a defendant's driver's license for a period of up to 30 days, depending on driving history.
For anything less than 100, most judges will allow you to attend traffic school, which keeps the point off of your record. For citations over 100 mph, though, judges will generally not allow a defendant to attend traffic school. Insurance companies that run a driving record will see the 2 points, and can increase insurance premiums drastically. On top off the 2 points, they'll see that it was for a rather dangerous-in-nature offense. We've had customers tell us that they've experienced rates increase by as much as 30-40%. Some insurance companies may even elect to cancel coverage.
At TicketKick, we certainly don't condone speeding. With that said, if you are going to push the posted limits a bit, keep it under the century mark.

Red light cameras have been a cause for a lot of controversy since they have become more commonly used across the country over the past several years. One of the biggest questions concerning these traffic violation enforcers is their constitutionality. A Florida judge recently ruled that they are constitutional, but here are several reasons why some might disagree and believe the cameras are unconstitutional:
Every defendant has the right to cross-examine his accuser:
In the case of a red light camera ticket your "accuser" is the red light camera, which is often operated by an out-of-state company. You cannot cross-examine a picture, which is really all there is that is accusing you of violating the red light. There was no officer present that can testify against you. It is too difficult for a picture to show every single thing that is happening at the time it was snapped, making it incredibly difficult to reach a fair ruling. Even if an officer is present, it is still hard for him to recall the situation when the picture was taken.
Red light cameras are operated by cities, not states:
In many state Constitutions, it is stated that only the state legislature can enact traffic laws. Red light cameras are operated and enforced by the cities that pay for their services. This would technically make them illegal in many of the states that use the service.
The driver of the vehicle cannot properly be ID'd:
It is nearly impossible to properly identify the driver of the vehicle through red light cameras, therefore it is questionable that they would even be allowed to issue a citation to an individual. The issuing of a ticket seems like it would be unfair if it cannot even be identified who was operating the vehicle at the time of the red light violation.
No consistent delivery method:
With many of the red light ticket systems, there is not much consistency in the delivery of the tickets. This is a huge issue because if motorists don't receive the ticket they cannot pay it, and a warrant can subsequently be issued for their arrest even though they may not even be aware of their violation.

A judge in Broward County, Florida, recently upheld the constitutionality of red-light cameras, according to The Miami Herald. Judge Steven DeLuca ruled on Wednesday that red light camera tickets do not violate citizens' rights and permitted their continued use in the city, reports the newspaper.
Some have questioned this decision based on DeLuca's past precedent regarding red-light camera tickets, according to the news source. The judge generally throws out a majority of tickets, only upholding 44 of the 830 tickets that were challenged in his court this past year, reports the media outlet. DeLuca refused to comment on this apparent inconsistency.
The red-light cameras have caused a great deal of controversy over the past few years. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in 2009 that red-light cameras do not violate due process constitutional rights, but this decision has been questioned through countless lawsuits across the country, according to The Murfreesboro Post. The National Motorists Association maintains that red-light cameras are unconstitutional because they do not allow the driver to face their accuser.
Although DeLuca's decision only applies in his court, defense attorney Ted Hollander has the option to appeal the decision. This subsequent ruling would have a greater area of impact, according to The Miami Herald.

COMPANY

800-580-1902

TicketKick.com completes legal documents in a professional and ministerial manner at the specific direction of the customer with the goal of helping the customer obtain a traffic ticket dismissal. Although many of TicketKick.com's customers are able to obtain a dismissal of their ticket after utilizing TicketKick.com's Trial By Written Declaration service, for customers who may be found guilty after using the service, TicketKick.com offers a service fee refund, subject to Terms & Conditions. You may email TicketKick.com representatives at questions@ticketkick.com.

Notice to Consumer/Disclaimer: TicketKick.com is not a law firm and purchasing a legal document is not a substitute for legal advice from an attorney. TicketKick.com is owned and operated by Auto Services Direct, Inc., a bonded and registered Legal Document Assistant (Los Angeles County LDA registration no. 2015010849). A Legal Document Assistant cannot provide legal advice and can only provide self-help services like preparing, completing, or filing legal documents or forms at your specific direction and supplying you with attorney - approved written material for your self-help needs. If you choose to use this site or TicketKick.com services you agree that the information provided on this website and information given by TicketKick.com employees is not legal advice and no Attorney - Client relationship is created. We are not an attorney. We cannot perform the legal services that an attorney performs. We cannot engage in the practice of law. This includes providing any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms, or strategies. TicketKick.com's registration is valid until February 1, 2018, after which it must be renewed. To confirm that TicketKick.com is registered, you may contact the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk at P.O. Box 1208 Norwalk, CA 90650-1208, or 562-462-2177, or https://www.lavote.net/. Our corporate offices are located at 5716 Corsa Ave, Suite 112, Westlake Village, CA 91362. Please note that your access to and use of TicketKick.com is subject to additional Terms & Conditions.